Chapter 14 Part II Evolution Chapter VII Non-Evolutionary Origin Ideas-2

7.2 The French Enlightenment It was not until the Enlightenment that the gradual emancipation from religious, philosophical, and political traditions emerged as a truly revolutionary movement.Although the movement was first started in England (especially Scotland) in the late 17th and early 18th centuries, France was at the forefront in developing new concepts and ideas about biology.It is not surprising, then, that it was a Frenchman who first proposed a true theory of evolution. The eighteenth century was a time of particularly strong and unresolved rational pressures.The problem in philosophy at the time was trying to reconcile the opposing ideas of Descartes, Newton and Leibniz.Religious belief in apocalypse is also increasingly out of date, as more and more contradictions are found in the Bible, and the mechanical world now has less and less room for natural phenomena.Personal theism, the belief in a personal God who perpetually intervenes in the course of nature and performs miracles, is also increasingly unacceptable to most philosophers and scientists.Even deism, the belief in a god who first created the world and its laws and then governed it by those laws (secondary causes), ran into difficulties.Could his designs be so exhaustive, including every special structure and function of countless species of plants and animals and their innumerable interactions?How can such an original design be reconciled with such obvious changes in various places on the earth?In particular, as we shall see shortly, how can either design or laws explain such biological phenomena as extinction, vestigial organs?Throughout the eighteenth and first half of the nineteenth centuries, one naturalist and one philosopher after another sought to reconcile the divergence between creationist and deist interpretations of the living world.Still others have turned outright atheists, believing neither in design nor in the existence of a Creator.The world is nothing but one big machine to them.

But how can this explain the characteristics of man and the coordination and adaptation between all living things and their environment?Whether one is a theist, deist, or atheist, there are questions that seem unanswerable.The intellectual restlessness resulting from the conflict of these ideologies or concepts, together with the increasing knowledge of the biological world, finally came down to Darwin's point of view. The century from 1740 to 1840 is crucial to the history of evolution because it was during this period that the concept of evolution made its breakthrough in the minds of most advanced thinkers.It was also a time of change, not only in geology and natural history, but also in political thought and social thought.The erosion of the notion of a static world in the natural sciences was also reflected in political science and real-life government and society, in questioning notions of imperial (and feudal hierarchy) divine mandate and maintenance of the status quo. "progress"

This notion was challenged by the concept of progress, which became almost the most important theme of philosophers' writings during the Enlightenment.The connection between these two principals, evolution in nature and progress in society, is obvious. What is less clear is where the dominant thinking in these two fields occurred, and what contributions the natural and social sciences each made to this current of thought. The answer to this question is important because it relates to the debate between externalism and internalism in science.Did the concept of progress arise in the political sphere (so the phenomenologists would say) and reappear in the natural sciences in the form of the concept of evolution?To answer this question, the concept of evolution must be analyzed.

Progress means growth and development, even if it is only an inherent possibility.As far as human beings are concerned, Fontenelle (1688) once pointed out: "The growth and development of human wisdom are endless." This can be said to be a new concept, or an old concept, because the concept of progress Components such as growth and development (Aristotle), continuity, inevitability, expression of ideas, ultimate purpose, etc. are not only represented in St. Augustine's worldview, but were also common among the ancients.Shortly before Fontenelle, Pascal (1647) also compared human development with the growth of the individual.

Development is equally important in Leibniz's thought, and he also places special emphasis on the principles of continuity and perfection.This differs in many respects from Descartes, who emphasized identity and mathematical invariance.In addition, no one has emphasized the importance of Potentiality more than Leibniz. He once said: Although many substances have reached a very perfect level, due to the continuous endless divisibility, there will always be inactive parts in the depths of things to be stimulated to grow and become more valuable. In a word, rise to A state of greater perfection...the whole universe has the greatest freedom and is forever progressing to the satisfaction of absolute beauty and the perfection of God's finished product, and thus is forever progressing to a higher stage of development (Nisbet, 1969) Optimistically speaking In the 18th century, the continuous improvement of human quality has always emphasized progress. Herder, Kant, and other prominent thinkers of the time expressed this idea and participated in what might be called the law of progress.This progress is not only a characteristic of nature, but also a characteristic of all human social institutions. Such an emphasis on progress is of course extremely important in the formulation of the American Constitution and the brewing of the French Revolution.

This trend of thought reached its climax in Condorcet's (1743-1794, French mathematician and philosopher) famous book "Progress of Human Mind" (Progress of Human Mind, 1795).He pointed out in the book: "Nature lays down no conditions for the perfection of human faculties, and the degree of human perfection is indeed unlimited; the progress in this degree of perfection cannot be prevented by any force from now on, and Nature has cast us upon this earth, and there is no limit to progress but the duration of the earth." If there had been a certain path to the theory of evolution from the conception of a continuous, unrestricted progress, the eminent naturalists of the eighteenth century should have found it very soon.But this is not the case.Buffon, Needham, Robinet, Diderot, Bonnet, and Haller all failed to translate the concept of progress in political philosophy into a scientific theory of evolution.In fact it was not until after the reaction to the Enlightenment began, with Napoleon usurping power in France, that Lamarck developed his theory of evolution.

There are many reasons to wonder why the political theory of progress must be transformed into the evolutionary theory of biology.For example, naturalists' idea of ​​progress does not fit with many facts that suggest retrogressive evolution, including parasitism and vestigial organs.The most powerful limiting factor may still be essentialism.Is not all progress the manifestation of already existing potentialities, without involving changes in the underlying essence?That is to say, no actual evolution has taken place.Fontenelle, for example, denies any idea of ​​change but growth, for he has said that Descartes and others have pointed out that nature is consistent in its products and does not change its prescriptions from generation to generation?All he can accept is a ready-made display of potential.There is a difference between growth and history.Growth is only the expression of an inner possibility, history is actual change.

Leibniz, on the other hand, goes beyond the essentialist view that this advance is the potential revelation.In his view, the possibilities of nature are infinite, "therefore there is no end to progress." This optimistic attitude is the inevitable logical result of the principle of perfection, immanence, and continuity. However, the French philosopher Voltaire (1694 -1778) laughed at it.Despite this criticism, Leibniz's ideas were accepted by most of the social philosophers of the 19th century, such as Marx, Kant, Spencer, etc.Leibniz once said: Progress "is not an accident, but a beneficial necessity".

Two points in Leibniz's views have influenced the subsequent history of evolutionary biology.His notions of continuity and progression and his blatant rejection of Platonism are important positive contributions to, and necessary prerequisites for, modern evolutionary thought.It is also one of the cornerstones of Darwin's evolutionary thinking.Leibniz in his philosophical treatise "The Unit Theory" (Monadology, 1712) once wrote: "Everything in nature happens gradually, and nothing happens overnight; this law governing change is part of my law of continuity." But another point of his, namely The inner drive towards progress, if not perfection, is a pure hindrance to the development of evolutionary thought.It has prompted some (like Spencer) to turn to an evolutionary view through a belief in progress, but to invoke entirely false teachings about the mechanism of evolution (see Chapter 11).Those who reject the view that progress is inevitable (including the Scottish school of philosophy) are actually closer to Darwin's thinking than the adherents of the French view of progress.The prevailing belief in inevitability and progress is harmful to any ideology or idea that embodies it (Monod: Chance and Inevitability, 1970).

The idea of ​​progress is closely related to, and partly derived from, the notion of the "ladder of nature" ("the great chain"). The concept of "the ladder of nature" can be traced back to Plato, but it appeared in a new form in the Middle Ages and later in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.It is based on the assumption of linear continuity (and hierarchy) from the non-living world via plants to lower animals to higher animals and man (and ideally through angels to God).The incidental perfection principle (the assertion that everything that is possible actually exists) is also often associated with the concept of the "natural ladder".Since there can be no gaps, the gaps between adjacent links of the chain are so infinitesimally small that the chain is effectively continuous.In the case of Leibniz, who placed particular emphasis on continuity, the influence of his mathematical interests is evident here.

Indeed, his views on the subject are often expressed in mathematical terms.Before Leibniz, the "great chain" It is completely a static concept, because it was perfect when it was created, so it is impossible to move towards more perfection, and any change can only be worse, can only be a regression. The concept of gradual perfection on which the "ladder of nature" is based can be expressed in various ways, as "more moral" (according to Aristotle), more conscious, more rational, closer to God, etc. Wait.Basically, this is mostly a hypothetical ideal, because observation cannot confirm or confirm the existence of such a perfect, continuous and linear chain.Instead, what one sees everywhere is a distinct gap or gap, such as the difference between mammals and birds, between fish and invertebrates, between ferns and botanical plants.So people's excitement is understandable when corals or other organisms such as phytozoans are found that seem to best connect plants and animals.It has been ventured to suggest that other gaps could likewise be filled by future discoveries.Among Leibniz's many followers none was as persistent as Charles Bonnet (1720-1793).He built a very complex "echelle des etres naturels" (echelle des etres naturels), in which flying squirrels, bats and ostriches are the continuation between mammals and birds.In his view, "organization" is the criterion for determining the rank in the chain.Whenever he speaks of evolution, it is clearly the expression of a pre-existing possibility. The existence of fossils and other evidences that can prove that some organisms may become extinct are obviously contradictory to the principle of perfection, which requires explanation.In the book "Protogaea" (Protogaea, 1693), Leibniz believed that many kinds of creatures that existed in previous geological ages disappeared later, and the creatures that exist today obviously did not exist before. This led him to propose that "even animal species have changed many times" in the course of enormous changes in the Earth's crust. (Philosophically) The number of units (monads, or translated as monads) remains fixed, but this does not involve the lineage as we understand it now, but just triggers the existing possibility.Thus the appearance of the chain has changed over time, but the essence on which it is based remains unchanged. (Lovejoy sees this altered chain as giving time to the chain.) This is contradictory, but not an argument advanced as a theory of evolution. Since the principle of perfection does not allow extinction, extinct animals can only be explained as early stages of living things that still exist. For example, this is exactly what Bonnet said (palingenese), while Robinet has more novel ideas about the origin of new patterns (newtypes) (ie combining previous prototypes).But since the potentiality of everything is pre-existing, nothing new is created.According to Robinet, "the natural ladder forms an infinite progressive whole without real boundaries; there are no phyla, families, genus, species, but only individuals" (Guyenot, 1941), "this is the first axiom of natural philosophy ’” For him, the chains are formed by the continuous creative activity of nature, not by the continuity of evolution and heredity.Oddly enough, a view similar to this can be found in Agassiz's writings as late as 1857, although the latter is more creationist in its terms. It can be said that the concept of evolution in the second half of the 18th century was still uncertain.Certain historians of science assign the three Frenchmen Maupertuis, Buffon, and Diderot as evolutionists, while German historians give that honor to Rodig, Herder, Goethe, and Kant.Subsequent research has not been able to confirm or support any of the above claims. All these "pioneers" were essentialists, who either suggested new origins (rather than evolution of existing patterns), or simply acknowledged the potential unfolding of intensions (unfolding, in the precise sense of the word "evolution", unfolding) .Their writings are important, however, not only because they show a steady approach to evolutionary thought, but they also point to the cultural-intellectual context in which evolutionary thought was formed and developed. In one sense, all these thinkers and scholars are indeed predecessors of Lamarck, but in another sense they are not, because Lamarck was the first and anti-evolutionary essentialists set Scholars who have completely broken barriers. Pierre Louis Moreau de Maupertuis (1698-1759) was the most progressive thinker of his time.It was he who first brought Newtonian ideas back to France, where they were eagerly embraced by Voltaire and others.However, Maupedet was the first Frenchman to realize that the simple Newtonian model of "force and motion" is not enough for biology (even for chemistry), which is why he combined Leibniz's ideas into his conceptual framework.Through his and Madame Chatelet's introductions, Buffon became acquainted with the ideas and views of Leibniz, which in this way have a strong influence in the writings of most French "revolutionary philosophers" and eighteenth-century scientists (including Lamarck). Leibniz (ideas) breath. Although Mo Peidui's majors are mathematics and astronomy.But he was interested in biological phenomena and was one of the pioneers of genetics (see Chapter 14).Although he has different views, he is neither an evolutionist nor one of the founders of the theory of natural selection, and many of his views are those of a cosmologist, not a biologist.His real importance lies in his rejection of the strong determinism and creationism of Newton's theory, and his return to the origin proposed by Lucretius (99-55 BC? Roman philosopher and poet) and the Epicurean school mainly from casual point of view.There is so much diversity and heterogeneity in nature that the world cannot possibly have been designed.He lashed out at natural theologians with arguments such as the fundamental incompatibility between the existence of poisonous plants and animals and the notion of "the wisdom and benevolence of a Creator." Although materialists (atheists) deny the existence of a Creator, they must consider the existence of biological organisms.They fall back on Lucretius' view that biological organisms can arise by "spontaneous generation".But there may be various versions of this "panacea" (dens exmachina).One possibility is that even the highest organisms may have arisen from ever-existing living germs or molecules through chance unions.As late as the middle of the 18th century, there were still many people who held this view, not only Maupedet, but also La Mettrie, Diderot and others.Another possibility is to combine the concept of spontaneous generation with the natural ladder.Since there are no living germs flushed out of nature, abiogenesis must be able to transform inanimate matter into living beings.But this method can only produce the simplest organisms from inanimate matter, and these simple organisms climb the "timed" (that is, endowed with time) ladder of nature and gradually transform into more and more complex organisms.We are about to see that this is essentially Lamarck's view of evolution (the theory of evolution). Mo Peitui's views on the origin of the living world include two aspects: on the one hand, a large number of new species of plants and animals are produced naturally, and on the other hand, the same number of deficient plants and animals is eliminated.This is of course an origin theory (there were various origin theories propagated as far back as the ancient Greeks), but not an evolution theory.As Roger (1963) rightly points out, it must be emphasized here that the argument that this defective new variant is eliminated has nothing to do with natural selection. Lacking experience in natural history, Maupedet did not find it at all ridiculous that any living being, even an elephant, arose from a chance combination of matter. "One could say that chance produces a large number of individuals, a small fraction of which are so composed that the organs of these animals serve their own needs. Larger numbers of individuals are neither purposeful nor adaptive, and these worst later All perished. The species we see today are therefore only a small fraction of those produced by an elusive fate” (Essaie decosmologie, 1750). However, Maupetto did not completely rely on natural occurrence as the sole source of new species.His work in genetics led him to what we may now call the speciation by mutation.For Mo Peiduo, a new species is nothing but a mutant individual.From this point of view he should be de Vrij's predecessor.He sees the race as formed from accidental or lucky individuals.Mo Peiduo is obviously an essentialist. Although he can consider the generation of new essences, he cannot realize that the population is gradually and continuously improved through the selection of the most suitable individuals (ie reproduction).Even so, in his mind the world is not static and time plays an important role. The two most famous naturalists of the 18th century, Buffon and Linnaeus, were born in the same year (1707).But they had nothing else in common except that they were born in the same year and that they both had a keen interest in natural history.Buffon (1707-1788) was very wealthy, born in an aristocratic family, and took scientific research as his hobby.Lin Nai is very poor, and has been running around for a long time to find a job.They also hold opposing views on many scientific conceptual issues (see Chapter 4). When Buffon was young, he stayed in England for a year to study mathematics, physics and plant physiology.When he returned to France, he translated and published Newton's "Differential Method" (fluxion) and Hull's "Phytostatics" (vegetable statics).Thanks to the special care of Minister Maurepas, he was also appointed director of the Royal Botanic Gardens (1739), though not fully qualified.However, he threw himself into this new work with great enthusiasm and made plans to write general natural history (from minerals to man).The magnum opus of thirty-five volumes in large quarto was finally completed before his death, taking a total of 40 years (1749-1788), and nine additional volumes were added later.In this monumental masterpiece of natural history, Buffon makes a fascinating exposition of almost all the questions that future evolutionists may ask.The style of this book is clear and fluent, and there are French texts and translations in various languages. At that time, all educated people in Europe rushed to read it.It is no exaggeration to say that during the Enlightenment and later generations, almost all famous scholars in France and other European countries were directly or indirectly Buffon's admirers or Buffonites.To be honest, Buffon was the founder of various schools of natural history in the second half of the eighteenth century (see Chapters 4 and 6).As we will see below, although he himself is not an evolutionist, there is no doubt that he is the originator of the theory of evolution.The reason why France is particularly interested in natural history is also related to him (Burkhardt, 1977). Few thinkers have been as difficult to get right as Buffon.There are many reasons for this.For example, Buffon's great work is actually an encyclopedia of natural history. For a general topic, such as evolution, relevant information on species and variation are often scattered in different volumes.In addition, Buffon's thought has obviously been developing continuously in his long-term work and activities. It is not easy and difficult to try to divide his thought into a clear time period.His mind is flexible and versatile, and he often considers the same problem from different angles and sides, so he sometimes contradicts himself.A study of the totality of his work is required to indicate definitively and convincingly which of Buffon's ideas should be regarded as most typical.Finally, it is possible that in Buffon's early writings he was not yet able to write fully and candidly. In the 1740s the theologians of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences of the University of Paris still held great power, and on one occasion (1751) Buffon did retract his statement concerning the history and age of the earth.At least some of Buffon's observations were probably worded so as not to offend these theologians. When Buffon published the first three volumes of the Natural History in 1749, he was a very strict Newtonian.He was thus impressed by the concept of motion and of continuity, while preoccupation with a mass of static, discontinuous entities such as species, genus, and family seemed meaningless to him.When he was appointed director of the Royal Botanic Gardens (now the Natural History Museum), his knowledge of systematics was limited, but he attacked the "nomists" (the Linnaean school) as dry pedantry and advocated the study of living animals and characteristic, so that he turns his flaw (not knowing much about systematics) into a strength.In the preface to "Natural History" he speaks of the utter impossibility of arranging various organisms in different levels, since there are always intermediate organisms between one genus and another.Furthermore, if any kind of classification method is to be adopted, it should be based on the totality of all characters, instead of only relying on a few subjectively selected characters like Linnaeus.Despite Buffon's emphasis on continuity, he makes no mention of evolution in the first three volumes of the Natural History.He makes no mention of the temporalization of chains, or of a species originating from or developing from another species.Also maintained in the first volume is the view that the individual is the only real entity in nature. Buffon took a completely utilitarian approach to the order of species in his natural history.He starts with the most important, most useful, and most familiar creatures to man.So domesticated species like horses, dogs, and cattle are placed before wild animals, and temperate animals before exotic animals.Such arbitrary classifications obviously cannot serve as a basis for considering or studying evolution.As far as man is concerned, it is the highest being: "everything, even its appearance, shows that man is superior to all other beings".Buffon, much like Descartes, also believed that being able to think is the most prominent characteristic of humans: "We think what thinks is the same as what is." Because he believed animals couldn't think, there seemed to him an unbridgeable gulf between humans and animals.In this way, it is impossible to consider that humans evolved from animals. The wording of the first three volumes of the Natural History suggests that Buffon was probably an atheist at the time.In 1764 he explicitly used the language of the deists.When Buffon wrote in 1774: "The more I have learned about the mysteries of nature (the world), the more I have admired and deeply revered its founder," and it seems that he did express his true feelings.When Buffon believed in eternal order and natural law, what he needed was a legislator, someone responsible for the observed secondary causes.Science would be meaningless if the world were not governed by an immutable and universal order. In this conception, Buffon is very similar to Aristotle, who also denied evolution on the basis of the same conception of the eternal order of the universe. Buffon was fully aware of the possibility of "common ancestry" and was probably the first scholar to articulate it. Not only the donkey and the horse, but man, monkey, quadruped, and all animals may be regarded as members of one family... If it is admitted that the donkey belongs to the family of horses, and that the difference between the donkey and the horse is only due to the original form of the body The result of the change.Then it can also be said that monkeys belong to the race of humans and are degenerated humans; it can also be said that humans and monkeys have a common origin. And it may also be said that practically all the families of plants and animals descend from a single parent; kind of animals. If once it is proved that we are right in establishing these families; if it is admitted that there is only one species (I do not mean several species) among animals and plants, the latter being directly descended from other species; Formed by degeneracy of the horse—Then the powers of nature would no longer have limits, and we would not be wrong in supposing that she (the Creator) could, given enough time, derive from one being all other formed beings.This is not, however, an exact image of nature. The revelation from heaven assures us that all animals equally share in the grace of God in creating all things, and that the first pair (spouses) of each species are also made and shaped by the Creator himself. (Buffon, 1766) The above-quoted statement can be interpreted (and was) as a deliberate superficial rebuttal by Buffon in order to conceal his genuine support for evolution (in doing so for the theologians in power).However, modern scholars of Buffon (Lovejoy, Wilkie, Roger) agree that, when studied in the context of this quotation, it is indeed a serious refutation of the possibility of common ancestors.Immediately following this quotation are various reasons against the possibility of one true species arising from another.Buffon specifically cited three reasons.First, new species are not known to have occurred in recorded history.Second, hybrid sterility is an insurmountable obstacle between species.Thirdly, if one species descended from another, "as the donkey descended from the horse," it would only produce results gradually and slowly.Thus there will be many intermediate animals between the horse and the donkey.Why, then, do we not see representatives or descendants of these intermediate species today?Why do only species at both ends (horse and donkey) still exist?These three reasons lead Buffon to the following conclusions: "Although it has not yet been proved that the generation of one species by degeneration into another is an impossibility in nature, the number of possibilities to deny it is so great that it is difficult to doubt it, even from a philosophical point of view. .” But how exactly did species begin?Living matter (organic molecules) is continuously produced by spontaneous chemical chemical reactions.Organic molecules also combine naturally to form the first individual of all elementary species.The original individual formed in this way is the original (original) type of the species (Prototype).It is the internal model (moule interieur) or epigenetic inner form (epigenetic inner form) of its descendants, thus guaranteeing the perpetuity of the species.This invariance is constantly challenged or influenced by the "environment", thus contributing to the generation of variants.However, the immutability of the internal schema does not allow mutation beyond a certain limit.In this respect, internal schemas play a role similar to Aristotle's forms (eidos).Many lower organisms are produced continuously from organic molecules through spontaneous generation.There are as many species of animals and plants as there are living combinations of organic molecules.A union without vitality dies. The first three volumes (published in 1749) and the fourth (1753) and subsequent volumes of the Natural History differ greatly.One reason for this is that Buffon became acquainted with the work of Leibniz in the early 1750s and learned that Leibniz emphasized the chain (of life), the principle of perfection, the perfection of the universe and its implications for evolution.Since then, Buffon's essays have taken on the color of a mixture of Newtonian and Leibnizian thought.On the one hand, he still advocates the principle of perfection, and said that "everything that can exist exists." On the other hand, he does not agree with the final cause, and his consistent attitude is anti-teleological. Since the world was created perfect, there is no need to strive for more perfection.He sometimes explicitly repudiates Plato's essentialism when he mentions that we must abstract from the multiplicity of phenomena, arguing that this abstraction is a product of our own intellect and not real.Most of his explanations, however, are typological, as is clear from his treatment of species. In the first volume of "Natural History", Buffon does not recognize the existence of species, but claims that there are only individuals.In the second volume he abandons this view entirely, and defines species as follows: Two animals should be regarded as belonging to the same species if they can perpetuate themselves and maintain the similarity of species by mating, and as belonging to different species if they cannot produce offspring by mating. kind of.Foxes and dogs would therefore be regarded as distinct species if it were proved to be impossible for the mating of females and males of these two animals to produce offspring.Even if hybrid offspring are produced, such as a certain type of mule, the mere fact that the mule is sterile is a sufficient proof that the fox and the dog are not of the same species. The production of sterile hybrids proves that a different species is involved, since in order to maintain a species "there must be continuous and unvarying reproduction." As Lovejoy rightly points out, this does not mean only that the species are real Yes, and that species are fixed and unchanging entities.For Buffon, species are patterns (types) rather than populations.Having such a strict concept of species, coupled with sterility in hybrids, rules out the notion that one species has evolved from another.Buffon's species definition has another flaw, that is, it does not really define the concept of species, but only provides a way to test whether two individuals belong to the same or different species.Its role is equivalent to the discriminant formula in mathematics. Buffon's most important remarks, which are relevant to the question we are about to discuss, are those under the heading "Evolutionary Biology" in a treatise on the degeneration of animals (1766).Here he strongly expresses his view that the vast majority of variation is non-hereditary and caused by the environment. "This may be accounted for by the fact that domestic animals are the most variable of all animals, because they are carried to regions of various climatic conditions, and reared on various different foods. Later Darwin also adopted this view. Buffon's background in physical science is particularly evident in his discussion of variation.As much as he was convinced that the same causes would produce the same effects, he also was convinced that animals living in the same region must resemble each other, since the same climate produces the same animals and plants.Since he believed that physical reasons were primary, he was convinced that life existed on other planets, and he calculated when life began on these planets based on estimates of the cooling rates of these planets.Buffon's notion that a biological organism is a "product" of the area in which it lives would have a major impact on the views of biogeographers for over a century. The above discussion will certainly clarify why it is not contradictory to say that Buffon is not an evolutionist and that he is the originator of the theory of evolution.他是议论大量有关进化问题的第一个人，这些问题在布丰之前没有任何人提起过。即便他往往作出了一些错误结论，然而也正是他在科学知识的宝库中增添了这些论题。尽管布丰本人反对按进化观点解释问题，然而他却将这些问题公之于科学界。在广泛讨论地球的一般起源，特别是沉积岩的起源方面，我们应当归功于他；他使人们认识到动物物种灭绝这个问题的重要性；他提出了密切有关的物种，如马和驴，究竟是否来自共同祖先这样的问题；最后，是他首先充分注意到问题中的问题；也就是在两个端始种（incipient species）之间建立现代称之为生殖隔离的问题。 布丰的思想对后来进化思想的发展，总的来看，究竟起了哪些作用？他显然处在一个既阻滞了又促进了进化思想发展的暧昧地位。在阻滞进化思想发展的方面是，他多次推崇物种不变的学说；而且还提出了辨别物种的标准——物种内部成员之间的繁殖力，这个标准被他的同时代人看作是完全不受进化演变影响的。老实说，由于生殖隔离的缘故从一个物种怎样能产生另一物种的问题一直到本世纪的前半期还困扰着不少遗传学家（Bateson，1922；Goldschmidt，1940）。布丰的上述保留（这些保留是他同时代的许多学者所共有的）正是为什么单有进化演变的论证还不足以建立进化学说的原因。所需要的是证明物种之间的鸿沟是怎样跨过的；后来这种证据是由地理物种形成论的支持者提供的。 布丰对进化学说的积极贡献是更为重要的。 （1）通过他的详细分析，他将进化观念带进了科学领域，并由此以后成为了科学研究的正当课题。 （2）他（和他的助手Daubenton）提出和发展了“模式一致”概念（concept ofthe unity of type）并将解剖结果加以概括总结。这样就首先产生了理想主义的形态学派，后来又产生了比较解剖学，它提供了大量有利于进化学说的证据。 （3）在提出地球的新年代纪方面，和其他人比较起来应更多地归功于他。提出新的年代纪就表示采纳了非常巨大的时间尺度。 （4）他是生物地理学的创始人。起初，出于反对林奈的原因，他将物种按它们来自哪个国家加以整理排列，并归类成动物区系。由布丰及其合作者编纂的动物区系名录为影响深远的概括奠定了基础。确实，达尔文从地区分布所得到的进化证据远比来自其它生物学现象的要多（见第十章）。 在布丰以前，博物学（自然史）具有副业的一切特征，是一种业余爱好。是布丰将之提高成为一门科学。《博物学》中所载的大部分内容即今天所谓的“生态学”；其余部分则涉及行为学研究。这再一次出色地证明作为平衡现代生理学的微观化影响（atomizing influences）的整体动物研究的价值或意义，特别是因为布丰本人对生理学，发育，有机分子也同样感兴趣。不论．是阅读18世纪后半期哪一位学者的着作，他们的议论，追根到底，都不过是对布丰的着作的评论。除了亚里斯多德和达尔文以外，再也没有哪一位生物学家具有布丰那样的深远影响。 在启蒙运动的领袖人物中，再也没有谁比狄德罗（1713-1784）对生物更感兴趣。 在《百科全书》的某些条目中，特别是在一系列幻想文章中，他一再抓住这样的～些问题不放：生命的起源和本质，偶然和必然，分子的相互作用，自然发生，环境的作用等等。狄德罗显然是一位贪婪的读者，他的臆测和推想很多是非常大方地借自布丰、莱布尼茨、莫培兑，Condillac，Bordeu，Haller，以及其它一些同时代人。他并没有多少创新的见解，但是他将当时的推测融合成解说性文章的出色技巧对法国的知识界是一次很大的冲击。他的最大胆的文章可能要算《Lereve deAlembert》。（DAlembert的梦，以下简称为）。虽然这篇文章是1769年写成的，但正式出版则是在1830年。文章写成后不久就有秘密版本在巴黎流传。因此该文的内容显然在巴黎的一些沙龙中是大家都熟知的，而且几乎可以肯定拉马克是熟悉的。这篇文章的韵味在因高热昏迷的DAlembert的呓语中表现得淋漓尽致： 所有动物都和其它动物有关……整个自然界处在不断流动的状态。每个动物都或多或少是人类，每样矿物多少是植物，每种植物多少是动物…自然界中没有东西是明确的…自然界中是否有任何原子与其它原子完全相同？没有……你是否同意自然界中每件东西都和其它东西密切联系在一起而且在这链索上不可能有空隙？…只有一个大的个体，那就是整体……你这可怜的哲学家，你还谈什么本质！扔掉你那本质观点罢……物种是怎样一回事？物种只不过是朝向它们所特有的共同目的的趋势。生命呢？一系列的作用与反作用……活的分子是一切事物的起源，在整个自然中没有一个微粒不感受痛快或喜悦。 这段简短的独白包含了几乎所有关于生命和物质的观念目录，这些观念也是从古代人一直到当时的哲学家如莱布尼茨和布丰所持有的观念。虽然狄德罗晚年思想中有某些部分在进化学说的发展上起过作用，但狄德罗本人怎样也说不上是个进化论者。在他的着作中没有任何关于地球上的生命随时间而变化的暗示。当狄德罗写时他已经是一个不可调和的无神论者。他的世界不是被创造的；它一点也没有自然神学家的世界的那种是设计而成的性质。这是一个彻底唯物主义的分子世界。中最值得记住的话也许是：“器官产生需要，反过来，需要又产生器官”。这种思想显然来自Condillac，后来咸为拉马克的进化学说的基础之一。 上面提到的一些学者大多数是法国人，法国在18世纪确实掌握了欧洲知识界的领导权。但是英国（尤其是苏格兰）、德国、荷兰、斯堪底那维亚也都在酝酿中。实际上在拉马克和居维叶去世后英国和德国就取代了法国的位置。德国在莱布尼茨连同他的非凡创造性过去了之后情况相当平静；然而处处都显示了僵硬的有神论正在逐渐衰退削弱。 自由主义的自然神论（即否定包括圣经在内的一切天启）在Reimarus的着作中大放异彩。 他对生物学的主要影响表现在对动物行为所作的解释上。但是当时最有影响的思想家却是历史学家Johann Gottftied Herder，他的主要贡献是他强调了历史思维和多样性。 在他的四卷集着作《关于人类历史的哲学》（Ideas towards a Philosophy of theHistoryof Man，1784－1791）中，他不仅谈到了人类的兴起，还详细讨论了宇宙和动植物界。Herder以其一贯的对任何问题的历史态度对歌德、康德以及自然哲学派的思想产生了重大影响。然而和其它德国人相仿，他也是一个本质论者；对他来说，从某一个物种转变成另一个物种简直是不可思议。Herder对生物界的基本观点是时间化了的自然界阶梯的观点，但是他从来没有认真了解过低等动物怎样变成高等动物或者植物怎样变成动物这样一类的问题。他坚持认为“我们见到结构的形式上升，随之生物的能力和习性也益发多种多样，最后汇合成人类的形式。”Herder的很多观点来自布丰，然而他往往将布丰的思想扩充，例如他对生存竞争问题就是如此。 康德往往被认为是达尔文的先驱，但是缺乏证明；这种情况已经被不少作者明确地论证过，其中特别是那夫乔的论证最有说服力。虽然康德对一些问题看得很清楚，这可以从他在所着的《判断力的批判》（1790）中就适应问题的议论看出，然而他是一位彻底的本质论者，根本想不到进化。他对布丰关于不育障碍（生殖隔离）保持物种之间的严格界限的论据印象极探，并以之作为绝不可能通过进化使一个物种转变成另一物种的确凿证据。康德未曾解决物种的不连续性和宇宙的连续性之间的矛盾；后者是他在其所着的宇宙学中表明的，他之坚信“伟大链索”也说明了这一点。物理和化学的纯粹机械定律和生物的完满适应（这似乎需要有特殊的创造）之间的表面冲突使康德处于他无法解脱的进退两难的地位（Mayr，1974d；Lovejoy，1959d）。 关18世纪后期德国的思想动态再也没有谁能比布鲁门巴赫（J．F．Blumenbach）表达得更确切；在他所写的，很有影响的博物学中广泛地讨论了可突变性，灭绝，自然发生，退化，最终原因，创造，灾变，和创造力（Bildunsstrieb）等等。布鲁门巴赫虽然具有渊博的学识，却无法使自己从当时占支配地位的观念中解脱出来。 英国在17世纪和18世纪早期在哲学（洛克，贝克利，休谟），物理学和生理学方面处于领先地位，而对18世纪的进化思想却几乎没有作出什么贡献。唯一的例外是Erasmus Darwin（达尔文——Charles Darwin——的祖父），他在其所着的《动物法则》 （Zoonomia，1794）中沉顿于某些因果关系的进化方面的推测，但从没有将之进一步扩展，因此他对随后的发展并没有产生什么影响。没有理由对他的思想作详细的介绍，然而要强调指出的是过去关于Erasmus Darwin的观点有三点想当然的说法是错误的： （1）说他为拉马克开辟了道路，甚至说拉马克的想法来自于他。这两人共同具有的获得性状遗传及其它观点在当时是普遍流传的，而且拉马克还显然不认识ErasmusDarwin。（2）说他对他的孙子达尔文的影响很深。在中几乎没有ErasmusDarwin的任何思想痕迹，达尔文也明确否认过这种影响，虽然达尔文的笔记反映了他曾经读过《动物法则》（Hodge，1981）。（3）说他是位富有创造性的思想家。ErasmusDarwin；主要是一个善于综合和普及的人；他本人的全部思想观点几乎完全来自早期的学者，由于他广泛阅读，因而他熟悉这些学者的思想观点。他的所谓进化观念在当时的自然神学家和英国的动物育种人员中是很普遍的。 英国在18世纪之所以对进化学说不感兴趣有几个原因。当时经验主义盛行，因而过份重视物理科学和实验科学。对博物学的研究完全掌握在神职人员手中，从而不可避免地引向信奉神创世界的完满设计。这种信念和进化概念是完全不相容的。 乍一看，在讨论进化思想的历史时又提到林奈（1707－1778）是完全不对题的，因为往往都认为他是进化学说的头号敌人。但是他却起过重要作用（见第四章）。虽然他由基于逻辑分类的分类学说出发为一种自然的、等级（结构）分类奠定了基础，但到了适当的时候这种分类却实际上强迫着人们去接受共同祖先概念。正像他那为人们熟知的一句话（“像世界地图上的各个国家一样，一切植物在各个方面都发生关系”《植物哲学》。1750）所指出的那样，他已经隐隐地感知到纲与目的关系。但是由于承认了属、目和纲，林奈就破坏了“生命的连续性”而代之以不连续的等级结构。这完全符合本质论思想，却和进化思想的连续性发生了矛盾。因此，如何使连续性与不连续性调和一致就成为对进化生物学的一场严重挑战。 由于他坚持物种固定不变（这和唯名论法国学派的含混观点相反），林奈就把物种来源变成了一个科学问题。这个问题由于他晚年提出的物种起源的杂交学说而复杂化。 和瑞一样，林奈也坚决反对物种异变论（heterogony）。事实上至少在他的主要着作中他是否定一个物种递变成另一个物种的。 林奈对自然界平衡和生存竞争的强烈兴趣对后来自然神学思想以及de Candolle等人的思想发展有重要影响。它构成了自然选择学说概念结构的重要部分。实际上达尔文的很多论据都可追溯到林奈，虽然也含有对林奈观点的否定。总之，林奈对后来产生进化学说的概念背景作出了重大贡献。 17世纪和18世纪在人们的自然观（对自然界的概念）上经历了几乎全面的革命。在一个“理性时代”，天启已经不再能作为解释自然现象的最后权威被人们接受。人格神论被自然神论或甚至无神论广泛地取代。在各个领域中的新发现否定了作为科学解释之源的圣经。干预与奇迹之神被作为普遍规律的缔创者上帝的偶像取代，这些普遍规律就是产生各种具体现象的第二位原因。这一观点是和重要的物理学定律的发现相协调的，这些重要定律使太阳和行星自动运行无需神的干预。时间无限，空间无限以及宇宙演化（康德，拉普拉斯）正在被人们接受。生物科学的发现对神创论者、干预论者的观点提出了严峻的挑战。这些挑战包括动物区系和植物区系的异源论（heteroreneity），深层地层化石的差异增大，灭绝的经常性的证据日渐增多，内涵性（inclusive）的林奈等级结构分类，形态性模式的发现，微生物的发现，生物的非凡适应能力，模式思想开始被种群思想代替。 到了18世纪末显然有两个重要问题需要解答：多样性的起源以及外观上在自然系统中的规整排列；一切生物在彼此之间以及与环境之间的非凡适应（能力）。对本质论者来说还有一个额外的问题，即如何协调物种及较高阶元显示的不连续性和一切生命现象的总体连续性。最后还有许多令人十分难于回答的特殊问题，这些问题看来和造物主的智慧和仁慈的概念相冲突，例如灭绝的问题和残留器官存在的问题。神创论越来越不是令人满意的解答。这样一来，新的革命性变革的舞台已经布置就绪，唯一的问题是等待某个博物学家有勇气和创造性提出一个肯定与现行信条相冲突的答案。这个人就是法国生物学家拉马克。